Re: 520 or 621

["Jo & Paul" <curry@tpg.com.au>]

Chester wrote in message <36ea2424.1669217@news.chariot.net.au>...
>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:07:15 +1030, "Jo & Paul" <curry@tpg.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Jo & Paul wrote in message <36e8d495@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
>>>
>>>Chester wrote in message <36e4c565.3871705@news.chariot.net.au>...
>>>>On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:14:12 GMT, chester@chariot.net.au (Chester)
>>>>wrote
>SNIP:
>>>>>>>>I assume 520 has no or only slight other problems than its tender
and
>>>>>621 tender is in good condition. Could 621s tender be used to replace
>>>>>the tender of 520, with only minor modifications to 621s tender.  I
>>>>>know it would probably look strange, but a repaint in 520 style would
>>>>>help a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Questions?
>>>>>1-Could it be done with no modification to 621s tender.
>>>>>2-If no, how much modification would be required.
>>>>>3-Could 520 cover the distance required with 621s tender (520 tender
>>>>>8tons coal/9100 galls and 621 tender 9tons coal/5200 galls)
>>>>>4-Are there any major unadvodiable problems with this idear I can not
>>>>>see.
>SNIP
>
>>>>Thank You
>>>>David Chester
>>>As to some of your questions I dont believe that 621 tender would hold
>>>enough coal for the run, to Victor and back now that 520 does
>>>not burn oil anymore and now chews up coal like its going out of
>>>fashion.{two firerman from Strath to Mt Barker on return was the norm}
>SNIP
>>>As to 621 steamranger are waiting on a grant for 35k to have her put
>>>back in service.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Paul Curry
>>>  Adelaide
>>>
>>>Sorry my mistake ,621 tender would NOT  hold enough coal
>>
>> Paul Curry
>>Wallyville
>>
>
>The figures I have for the 520 and 621 tenders put the tender of 621
>at 1 ton of coal greater than and 3900 galls of water less than the
>tender of 520 (520 8 tons coal 9100 galls water/621 9 tons coal 5200
>galls water).  The reson I first asked the question was over the water
>capacity of the tender of 621 and the water requirements of 520.  But
>are the figures I have correct, for if thay are (which I am starting
>to doubt) there should be no coal problem.
>
>Could some one please check the figures for me and post the correct
>ones if I have it wrong.
>
>Thank you
>David Chester
>(chester@chariot.net.au)
   David ,sorry but what I should of mention is that since 520 has had the
oil tank removed (1400 gallons,6360 litres) the coal capacity on
520 is higher than 621.
And with the water 520 from Mt Barker to Victor and return to Goolwa
(first water stop) would use 5000gallons.
If you were to  use 621 tender would only leave 200 gallons left
which is not enough ,as there is no other water facilites other than
Goowa depot .
Other than me not explaining the extra coal that 520 now carries
you were right with the old capacity.